Abstract
Historically the gold standard for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) has been open pyeloplasty. However, since laparoscopic-assisted pyeloplasty was first described by Schuessler et al. in 1993, the minimally invasive approach has gained wide popularity and acceptance among both academic and community urologists [1, 2]. The goal of correcting a UPJO is not to reverse damage which the kidney has already sustained but to prevent further deterioration of function and to relieve symptoms. Laparoscopic or robotic approaches to correction of UPJO have been well documented in the literature, including reduction in hospital stay, decreased postoperative analgesic requirements, and reduced incision size and amount of esthetically undesirable scarring [3].
This chapter contains a video segment which can be found at the URL: http://www.springerimages.com/ost
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol. 1993;150:1795–9.
Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR. Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology. 2005;65:260–4.
Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA. Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol. 2006;175:683–7.
Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR. Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol. 2005;19:327–32.
McDougall EM, Finley D, Clayman RV, et al. Basic urologic laparoscopy: a standardized guideline for training programs. AUA 2005.
Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R. Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology. 2002;60:509–13.
Patel V. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urology. 2005;66:45–9.
Chammas MF Jr, Hubert J, Patel VR. Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a transatlantic comparison of techniques and outcomes. BJU Int. 2007;99:1113–7.
Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH. The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol. 2008;180:1397–402.
Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, et al. Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol. 2008;180:1391–6.
Schwentner C, Pelzer A, Neururer R, et al. Robotic Anderson–Hynes pyeloplasty: 5-year experience of one centre. BJU Int. 2007;100:880–5.
Mendez-Torres F, Woods M, Thomas R. Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2005;19:393–6.
Hemal AK, Mishra S, Mukharjee S, Suryavanshi M. Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair. Int J Urol. 2008;15:744–6.
Sergi F, Flammia GP, Alcini A, et al. Collagen changes in the ureteropelvic junction after failed antegrade endopyelotomy. J Endourol. 2007;21:103–7.
Andreoni CR, Lin HK, Olweny E, Landman J, Lee D, Bostwick D, Clayman RV. Comprehensive evaluation of ureteral healing after electrosurgical endopyelotomy in a porcine model: original report and review of the literature. J Urol. 2004;171:859–69.
Palese MA, Stifelman MD, Munver R, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: a combined experience. J Endourol. 2005;19:382–6.
Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, Bagley DH. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: technical considerations and outcomes. J Endourol. 2008;22:1291–6.
Kumar R, Yadav R, Kolla SB. Simultaneous bilateral robot-assisted dismembered pyeloplasties for bilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction: technique and literature review. J Endourol. 2007;21:750–3.
Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol. 1999;162:692–5.
Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology. 1995;46:791–5.
Ost MC, Kaye JD, Guttman MJ, Lee BR, Smith AD. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm in the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology. 2005;66:47–51.
Soulie M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology. 2001;57:443–7.
Link RE, Bhayani S, Kavoussi LR. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg. 2006;243:486–91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Electronic supplementary material
Robotic Assisted Pyeloplasty for Adult Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction (56.3 MB)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Conley, S.P., Lee, B.R. (2011). Adult Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction. In: Ost, M. (eds) Robotic and Laparoscopic Reconstructive Surgery in Children and Adults. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-914-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-914-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-1-60327-913-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-60327-914-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)